Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 04/20/2026 12:48:02 PM PDT by Bruce Campbells Chin
The future of President Donald Trump’s executive order attempting to limit access to birthright citizenship is now positioned for a final decision from the Supreme Court. Questioning from the justices...suggests an icy reception for the Justice Department’s claim that the constitutional guarantee of citizenship turns on an innovative interpretation of the legal concept known as “domicile.”
***
Trump’s executive order...claims that the 14th Amendment grants U.S. citizenship to children born in the United States depending on the citizenship or immigration status of their parents. The amendment’s citizenship clause provides that a person becomes a citizen “of the United States and the state wherein they reside” if they are born in the United States and are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
To successfully defend the constitutionality of Trump’s order, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer will have to convince a majority of justices on three fronts. First, that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means a person is “domiciled” in the United States. Second, that domicile should be interpreted to require legal permission to live in the United States indefinitely as a permanent resident, the most privileged form of immigration status, rather than temporarily or altogether without the federal government’s permission. Third, that children born in the United States acquire citizenship at birth only if their mother was domiciled in the country at the time of the child’s birth.
The text of the citizenship clause does not use the term domicile, but the Trump administration argues that it is implied. Sauer, who is the federal government’s lead attorney before the Supreme Court, argued that “reside,” which does appear in the citizenship clause (in terms of state citizenship), “means domicile in the Constitution.” For children to acquire U.S. citizenship at birth, the constitutional provision “presupposes domicile,” he told the justices.
(Excerpt) Read more at scotusblog.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
LOL
Now there is one I never thought I would see on Free Republic for sure. All of us here on FRee Republic complain about indoctrination in the schools 3 times a day and 4 times on Sunday but whatever you do you pal.
Understand and no worries. AI reported back to me late last year that COL Allen West had a MOH. What???
If you had a brain, you wouldn’t allow yourself to be indoctrinated. When you question everything, and don’t believe what the government tells you, chances are you won’t become a victim of their lies.
I knew the principle was there, but the wording was wrong.
Yeserday, AI told me that Pam Bondi was the Attorney General. It sometimes anchors on the first citation it finds, and is throttled to expend as few cycles as it can get away with.
-PJ
“I predict the court will punt, it will continue as-is but they won’t actually decide the case one way or another.”
To “punt” means to uphold the current acceptance of birthright citizenship.
That in itself would be a decision against the government.
What is the new language to which you’re referring?
“....totally ignoring the US Constitution and all of the very careful political history and discussions of our Founding Fathers”
This case isn’t governed by the reasoning or language of the Founding Fathers. The 14th Amendment was enacted 81 years after the Constitution. All the Founding Fathers were long dead, and it was their dereliction on the issue of slavery that spawned the amendment in the first place.
“The governed did not ratify universal birthright citizenship.”
We are a republic.
“The purpose was to create a kingdom class of citizenship that never existed and thus give us civil rights — not the original God given ones.”
????
The Republic cannot bestow or withdraw “original God given” rights. It can and ought to ensure civil rights.
Not to split hairs, but reading Wong Kim Ark, I see no language about the legal vs. illegal status of the respondent’s parents.
True. Thank you.
Correct. I garbled that with another posting. Thanks!.
From AI during my research on Barbara v. United States and Janus v. v. AFSCME:
In 1898, there was no comprehensive federal immigration system, no nonimmigrant visa classification, and no statutory scheme distinguishing permanent from temporary alien residents. All of those developed in the 20th century — particularly the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 and its successors.The entire modern framework of documented versus undocumented presence, immigrant versus nonimmigrant intent, and domicile attestation on visa applications is post-Wong. The Court in 1898 could not have been addressing a legal landscape that didn't exist.
That's why the Supreme Court laid out the circumstances in Wong so elaborately using domicile law based on the definitions found in Black's Law Dictionary first published in 1891, four years before Wong was heard:
The case was submitted to the decision of the court upon the following facts agreed by the parties:They had to establish the stipulated facts that Wong intended to stay, and as proof he offered what appears to be him accompanying his parents back to China (perhapps to die in their homeland - conjecture on my part) and then returning, and then again going to China four years later (perhaps to bury his parents - conjecture on my part) and then returning.'That the said Wong Kim Ark was born in the year 1873, at No. 751 Sacramento street, in the city and county of San Francisco, state of California, United States of America, and that his mother and father were persons of Chinese descent, and subjects of the emperor of China, and that said Wong Kim Ark was and is a laborer.
'That at the time of his said birth his mother and father were domiciled residents of the United States, and had established and enjoyed a permanent domicile and residence therein, at said city and county of San Francisco, state aforesaid.
'That said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark continued to reside and remain in the United States until the year 1890, when they departed for China. 'That during all the time of their said residence in the United States, as domiciled residents therein, the said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark were engaged in the prosecution of business, and were never engaged in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China.
'That ever since the birth of said Wong Kim Ark, at the time and place hereinbefore stated and stipulated, he has had but one residence, to wit, a residence in said state of California, in the United States of America, and that he has never changed or lost said residence or gained or acquired another residence, and there resided claiming to be a citizen of the United States.
'That in the year 1890 the said Wong Kim Ark departed for China, upon a temporary visit, and with the intention of returning to the United States, and did return thereto on July 26, 1890, on the steampship Gaelic, and was permitted to enter the United States by the collector of customs, upon the sole ground that he was a native-born citizen of the United States.
'That, after his said return, the said Wong Kim Ark remained in the United States, claiming to be a citizen thereof, until the year 1894, when he again departed for China upon a temporary visit, and with the intention of returning to the United States, and did return thereto in the month of August, 1895, and applied to the collector of customs to be permitted to land; and that such application was denied upon the sole ground that said Wong Kim Ark was not a citizen of the United States.
'That said Wong Kim Ark has not, either by himself or his parents acting for him, ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, and that he has never done or committed any act or thing to exclude him therefrom.'
The Court then summarized the case that was being heard in ¶ 3:
3You didn't see any language about legal vs. illegal because those concepts didn't exist until the 1950s. That's why the Court ruled on domicile law, which did exist.The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution: 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.'
-PJ
Uh, that would be anyone who is not born a citizen
How is one born a citizen?
You must be born on the crest of a wave and rocked in the cradle of the deep.
Hope that clears it up!
None of our children in k-12 have brains I guess.
I know you want to insult me personally but I can only say the words "school" and "k-12" and "universities" so many times. Might as well throw the word "college" in there. You're very adept at ignoring these words to suit your agenda.
BTW, there were more discussion topics created today at FR that touch upon left wing domination in the schools. You're welcome.
This can be solved easily. Debank illegals
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.